Response to Dr. Robert Schultz article in Reading Eagle

The article by Dr. Robert Schultz in the October 5 issue of the Reading Eagle is one of the more informed articles on cyber schools that has been published, but some generalizations and misunderstandings still remain.

Cyber charter schools are “tuition free” in the same sense that all public schools are “tuition free” – the cost for both is coming from the local, state, and federal tax dollars that are already being paid by taxpayers. You can take issue with the term “tuition free”, but the intent is to communicate to the parents that they do not need to pay more, as they would if their children attended a private school.

Cyber schools generally do have lower scores on the School Performance Profile, but few people understand that cyber schools are prohibited from earning 12 points on the SPP that district and brick-and-mortar charters can earn; that cybers receive only one score for the entire school (which can include more than 10,000 students); that many students in cybers are entering the cyber because they are failing in the traditional school and cybers are their last chance to stay in school; and that some cyber schools loose, and add, as many as 40% of their enrollment every year. Academic performance in cyber schools needs to be addressed, but any district facing these same challenges would be hard-pressed to achieve outstanding SPP scores.

Relative to the recommendations from the recent report on full-time virtual education, we agree that low performing cybers (and any low-performing public school) should be closed, and several cybers have been closed in the last few years. The recommendation to establishment enrollment criteria is illegal in Pennsylvania because, as a public school, every student who applies must be accepted. We agree that funding for cybers should be based on actual costs, and Dr. Schultz is correct that a methodology to achieve that is in House Bill 530. What Dr, Schultz may not know is that the bill was tabled in the legislature because Governor Wolf threatened to veto it unless the School District of Philadelphia received the ability to dictate mandated enrollment caps on the brick-and-mortar charter schools in Philadelphia. Also in that bill was a cut of $26 million to cybers that was lost to the districts.

Dr. Schultz’s reference to a particular cyber school as being run by a “for-profit” firm is incorrect. That cyber school broke off that relationship last year. The only cyber charter school in the state that has any management relationship with a for profit management company is the one approved by PDE last year which has the capacity to serve up to 500 of the 37,000 students in cyber charter schools.

Finally, Dr. Schultz condemns cybers for spending taxpayer money on communications and lobbyists yet ignores the facts that cyber schools serve a statewide population; significant tax dollars are spent by districts on their own public relations and community services efforts; districts do spend money on television, radio, and billboard advertising; and districts, including his, pass through taxpayer dollars to almost half-a-dozen statewide organizations that hire lobbyists. It’s inconsistent to condemn cybers for doing exactly the same thing districts are doing either directly or through other organizations.

What is important is providing every student with the resources they need to receive regardless of the type of public education they have chosen.